Conjunctive interpretations of disjunctions - Semantics and Pragmatics

Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 3, Article 11: 1–28, 2010 doi: 10.3765/sp.3.11

Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction∗ Robert van Rooij ILLC, University of Amsterdam

Received 2010-02-02 / First Decision 2010-03-21 / Revision Received 2010-04-19 / Second Decision 2010-04-20 / Revision Received 2010-05-12 / Third Decision 201006-10 / Revision Received 2010-07-13 / Accepted 2010-08-18 / Published 2010-09-15

Abstract In this extended commentary I discuss the problem of how to account for “conjunctive” readings of some sentences with embedded disjunctions for globalist analyses of conversational implicatures. Following Franke (2010, 2009), I suggest that earlier proposals failed, because they did not take into account the interactive reasoning of what else the speaker could have said, and how else the hearer could have interpreted the (alternative) sentence(s). I show how Franke’s idea relates to more traditional pragmatic interpretation strategies.

Keywords: embedded implicatures, optimal interpretation, free choice permission

1 Introduction Neo-Gricean explanations of what is meant but not explicitly said are very appealing. They start with what is explicitly expressed by an utterance, and then seek to account for what is meant in a global way by comparing what the speaker actually said with what he could have said. Recently, some researchers (e.g., Levinson (2000), Chierchia (2006), Fox (2007)) have argued that it is wrong to start with what is explicitly expressed by an utterance. Instead — or so it is argued — implicatures should be calculated locally at linguistic clauses. For what it is worth, I find the traditional globalist analysis of implicatures more appealing, and all other things equal, I prefer the global ∗ The content of this paper was crucially inspired by Michael Franke’s dissertation, and earlier work done on free choice permission by Katrin Schulz. Besides them, I would also like to thank the reviewer of this paper and the editors of this journal (David Beaver in my case) for their useful and precise comments on an earlier version of this paper. ©2010 Robert van Rooij This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons NonCommercial License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0).

Robert van Rooij

analysis to a localist one. But, of course, not all things are equal. Localists provided two types of arguments in favor of their view: experimental evidence and linguistic data. I believe that the ultimate “decision” on which line to take should, in the end, depend only on experimental evidence. I have not much to say about this, but I admit to be happy with experimental results as reported by Chemla (2009) and Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009a) which mostly seem to favor a neo-Gricean explanation. But localists provided linguistic examples as well, examples that according to them could not be explained by standard “globalist” analyses. Impossibility proofs in pragmatics, however, are hard to give. Many examples involve triggers of scalar implicatures like or or some embedded under other operators. Some early examples include φ ∨ (ψ ∨ χ) and (φ ∨ ψ). Localist theories of implicatures were originally developed to account for examples of this form. As for the first type of example, globalists soon pointed out that these are actually unproblematic to account for. As for the second type, Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009a) provide experimental evidence that implicature triggers like or and some used under the scope of an operator like believe or want do not necessarily give rise to local implicatures. That is, many more participants of their experiments infer the implicature (1-b) from (1-a), than infer (2-b) and (3-b) from (2-a) and (3-a), respectively. Moreover, they show that there is little evidence that people in fact infer (3-b) from (3-a). (1)

a. b.

Anna ate some of the cookies. Anna didn’t eat all of the cookies.

(2)

a. b.

Bob believes that Anna ate some of the cookies. Bob believes that Anna did not eat all of the cookies.

(3)

a. b.

Bob wants Anna to hear some of the Verdi operas. Bob wants Anna not to hear all of the Verdi operas.

These data are surprising for localist theories of implicatures according to which scalar inferences occur systematically and freely in embedded positions. The same data are accounted for rather easily, however, on a global analysis.1 Thus, Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009a) argue that localist theories of embedded implicatures tend to over-generate, and that global neo-Gricean theories predict much better.

1 See Geurts & Pouscoulous 2009a and Geurts & Pouscoulous 2009b for discussion, and footnote 18.

11:2

Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction

It is well-known, however, that globalist theories have serious problems with other examples involving triggers used in embedded contexts as well. Problematic examples include conditionals with disjunctive antecedents like (φ ∨ ψ) > χ and free choice permissions like ♦(φ ∨ ψ). Both examples seem to give rise to “conjunctive” interpretations: from ♦(φ ∨ ψ), for example, we infer ♦φ ∧ ♦ψ. Standard neo-Gricean analyses like those of Sauerland (2004) and van Rooij & Schulz (2004), however, do not predict this. Fox (2007) has shown that this conjunctive interpretation follows once we make use of recursive exhaustification, and Chemla (2009) has defined a new operator that can be applied globally to the formula ♦(φ ∨ ψ) and still gives rise to the desired conjunctive reading. This is certainly appealing, but it is not so clear that Chemla’s analysis is truly neo-Gricean. In the words of Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009b), “Defining an operator is one thing; providing a principled pragmatic explanation is quite another”. Franke (2010, 2009) provided such a principled pragmatic explanation of these data making use of game theory.2 The purpose of this paper is to show how this analysis relates to more traditional pragmatic interpretation strategies. As we will see, this reformulation also involves multiple uses of exhaustive interpretation. I will explain how the analysis still differs from the analysis of Fox (2007), and suggest that it is more Gricean in spirit. The experimental data of Chemla (2009) are mostly problematic for localist analyses of implicatures. He found, for instance, that sentences of the form ∀x(P x ∨ Qx) do not routinely give rise to the expected “local” implicature that ∀x¬(P x ∧ Qx).3 Still, there is at least one type of experimental result that, he claims, favors a localist analysis. Chemla (2009) found that just as for sentences of the form ♦(φ ∨ ψ), sentences of the form ∀x♦(P x ∨ Qx) also give rise to a “conjunctive” interpretation: it licenses the inference to ∀x♦P x ∧ ∀x♦Qx. Chemla claims that this inference is predicted by a localist analysis, but not by a globalist one. In section 4.3 we will come back to this issue. 2 For a rather different pragmatic explanation of these data, see Chemla 2008. 3 Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009a) found something similar, and claim that on the basis of their data one should conclude that this inference simply never takes place. I am not sure, though, whether they also tested that the inference also does not take place in case a sentence like Everybody likes bananas or apples is given as answer to the explicit question What does everybody like?.

11:3

Robert van Rooij

2

In need of pragmatic explanation

2.1 Conditionals with disjunctive antecedents It seems reasonable that any adequate theory of conditionals must account for the fact that at least most of the time instantiations of the following formula (Simplification of Disjunctive Antecedents, SDA) are true: (4)

(SDA)

[(φ ∨ ψ) > χ] → [(φ > χ) ∧ (ψ > χ)]

For instance, intuitively we infer from (5-a) that both (5-b) and (5-c) are true: (5)

a. b. c.

If Spain had fought on either the Allied side or the Nazi side, it would have made Spain bankrupt. If Spain had fought on the Allied side, it would have made Spain bankrupt. If Spain had fought on the Nazi side, it would have made Spain bankrupt.

Of course, if the conditional is analyzed as material or strict implication, this comes out immediately. Many researchers, however, don’t think these analyses are appropriate, and many prefer an analysis along the lines of Lewis and Stalnaker. Adopting the limit assumption,4 one can formulate their analyses in terms of a selection function, f , that selects for each world w and sentence/proposition φ the closest φ-worlds to w. A conditional represented as φ > χ is now true in w iff fw (φ) ⊆ χ. This analysis, however, does not make (SDA) valid. The problem is that if we were to make this principle valid, e.g., by saying that fw (φ ∨ ψ) = fw (φ) ∪ fw (ψ), then the theory would loose one of its most central features, its non-monotonicity. The principle of monotonicity, (6)

(MON)

[φ > χ] → [(φ ∧ ψ) > χ],

becomes valid. That is, by accepting SDA, we can derive MON on the assumption that the connectives are interpreted in a Boolean way,5 and we end up with a strict conditional account. We have seen already that the strict conditional account (or the material conditional account) predicts SDA, 4 The assumption that for any world there is at least one closest φ-world for any consistent φ — see Lewis 1973 for classic discussion. 5 From φ > χ and the assumption that connectives are interpreted in a Boolean way, we can derive ((φ ∧ ψ) ∨ (φ ∧ ¬ψ)) > χ. By SDA we can then derive (φ ∧ ψ) > χ.

11:4


but perhaps for the wrong reasons. The Lewis/Stalnaker account does not validate MON because SDA is not a theorem of their logic. Although there are well-known counterexamples to SDA,6 we would still like to explain why it holds in “normal” contexts. A simple “explanation” would be to say that a conditional of the form (φ ∨ ψ) > χ can only be used appropriately in case the best φ-worlds and the best ψ-worlds are equally similar to the actual world. Though this suggestion gives the correct predictions, it is rather ad hoc. We would like to have a “deeper” explanation of this desired result in terms of a general theory of pragmatic interpretation. 2.2 Free choice The free choice problem is a problem about permission sentences. Intuitively, from the (stated) permission You may take an apple or a pear one can conclude that you can take an apple and that you can take a pear (though perhaps not both). This intuition is hard to account for, however, on any standard analysis of permission sentences. There is still no general agreement of how to interpret such sentences. In standard deontic logic (e.g., Kanger 1981, though basically due to Leibniz (1930)) it is assumed that permission sentences denote propositions that are true or false in a world, and that deontic operators (like ought and permit) apply to propositions. The permission ♦φ is considered to be true in w just in case there exists a world deontically accessible from w in which φ is true. Obviously, such an analysis predicts that ♦φ î ♦(φ ∨ ψ).7 This analysis does not predict, however, that ♦(φ ∨ ψ) î ♦φ ∧ ♦ψ. According to other traditions (e.g., von Wright 1950, Lewis 1979), we should look at permission sentences from a more dynamic perspective. But there are still (at least) two ways of doing this. According to the performative analysis (cf., Lewis 1979), the main point of making a permission is to change a prior permissibility set to a posterior one. This analysis might still be consistent with the deontic logic approach in that it assumes that what is permitted denotes a proposition. Another tradition (going back to von Wright 1950) is based on the assumption that deontic concepts are usually applied to actions rather than propositions. Although permissions are now said to apply to actions, a permission sentence by itself 6 See Fine 1975. 7 In the philosophical literature, this is sometimes called the paradox of free choice permission, because it is taken to be problematic.

11:5

Robert van Rooij

is still taken to denote a proposition, and is true or false in a world.8 2.2.1

A conditional analysis with dynamic logic

Let us first look at the latter approach according to which deontic operators are construed as action modalities. Dynamic logic (Harel 1984) makes a distinction between actions (and action expressions) and propositions. Propositions hold at states of affairs, whereas actions produce a change of state. Actions may be nondeterministic, having different ways in which they can be executed. The primary logical construct of standard dynamic logic is the modality hαiφ, expressing that φ holds after α is performed. This modality operates on an action α and a proposition φ, and is true in world w if some execution of the action α in w results in a state/world satisfying the proposition φ. Dynamic logic starts with two disjoint sets; one denoting atomic propositions, the other denoting atomic actions. The set of action expressions is then defined to be the smallest set A containing the atomic actions such that if α, β ∈ A, then α ∨ β ∈ A and α; β ∈ A.9 The set of propositions is defined as usual, with the addition that it is assumed that if α is an action expression and φ a proposition, then hαiφ is a proposition as well. To account for permission sentences we will assume that in that case also Per(α) is a proposition. Propositions are just true or false in a world. To interpret the action expressions, it is easiest to let them denote pairs of worlds. The mapping τ gives the interpretation of atomic actions. The mapping τ is extended to give interpretations to all action expressions by τ(α; β) = τ(α); τ(β) and τ(α ∨ β) = τ(α) ∪ τ(β). The action α; β consists of executing first α, and then β. The action α ∨ β can be performed by executing either α or β. We write τw (α) for the set {v ∈ W | hw, vi ∈ τ(α)}. Thus, τw (α) is the set of all worlds you might end up in after performing α in w. We will say that Per(α) is true in w, w î Per(α),10 just in case τw (α) ⊆ Pw , where Pw is the set of 8 There is yet another way to go, which recently became popular as well (e.g., Portner 2007): assume that permission applies to an action, but assume that a permission statement also changes what is permitted. I won’t go into this story here. Another story I won’t go into here is the resource-sensitive logic approach to free choice permission proposed in Barker 2010, a paper I became aware of just as the current paper was going to press. 9 I will ignore iteration here. 10 Strictly speaking the definition of î should be relativized to a model, but the model remains implicit here as throughout the paper.

11:6


permissible worlds in w. Notice that this way of interpreting permissions gives them a conditional flavor: Per(α) really means that it is acceptable to perform α.11 Given the interpretation of disjunctive actions, it immediately follows that we can account for free choice permission: from the truth of Per(α ∨ β) we can infer the truth of Per(α) and Per(β).12 Although free choice permission follows, one wonders whether it should be built into the semantics: if I allow you to do α this doesn’t mean that I allow you to do α in any way you want. I only allow you to do α in the best way. To account for this latter rider, we can add to our models a selection function, f , that picks out the best elements of any set of possible worlds X for every world w. Then we say that ♦α is true in w iff fw (τw (α)) ⊆ Pw . But even if fw (X ∪Y ) ⊆ fw (X)∪fw (Y ), it is still not guaranteed that fw (X ∪Y ) = fw (X) ∪ fw (Y ), and thus the free choice permission inference isn’t either. Of course, the inference follows in case fw (α ∨ β) = fw (τw (α)) ∪ fw (τw (β)), but we would like to have a pragmatic explanation of why this should be the case if an assertion of the form ♦(α ∨ β) is given. 2.2.2

A performative analysis

Lewis (1979) and Kamp (1973, 1979) have proposed a performative analysis of command and permission sentences involving a master and his slave. On their analysis, such sentences are not primarily used to make true assertions about the world, but rather to change what the slave is obliged/permitted to do.13 But how will permission sentences govern the change from the prior permissibility set, Π, to the posterior one, Π0 ? Kamp (1979) proposes that this change depends on a reprehensibility ordering, ≤, on possible worlds. The effect of allowing φ is that the best φ-worlds are added to the old permissibility set to figure in the new permissibility set. This set will be ∗ denoted as Πφ is and defined in terms of the relation ≤ as follows: (7)

def

∗ Πφ = {u ∈ φ | ∀v ∈ φ : u ≤ v}

Thus, the change induced by the permission You may do φ is that the new ∗ permission set, Π0 , is just Π ∪ Πφ . Note that according to this performative account it does not follow that for a permission sentence of the form You 11 See Asher & Bonevac 2005 for a conditional analysis of permissions sentences. 12 Notice also that another paradox of standard deontic logic is avoided now: from the permission of α, Per(α), the permission of α ∨ β, Per(α ∨ β) doesn’t follow. 13 For further discussion of this model, see e.g, van Rooij 2000.

11:7

Robert van Rooij

may do φ or ψ the slave can infer that according to the new permissibility set he is allowed to do any of the disjuncts. Still, in terms of Kamp’s analysis we can give a pragmatic explanation of why disjuncts are normally interpreted in this “free choice” way. To explain this, let me first define a deontic preference relation between propositions, ≺, in terms of our reprehensibility relation between worlds, χ and (φ ∧ ψ) > χ. Before we can discuss the possible pragmatic interpretations, let us first note that according to standard deontic logic ♦(φ ∨ ψ) î ♦φ ∨ ♦ψ,17 and that adopting the Lewis/Stalnaker analysis of conditionals, it holds that (φ ∨ ψ) > χ î (φ > χ) ∨ (ψ > χ). Let us first look at the standard pragmatic interpretation rule Prag. Given that ♦φ and ♦ψ express stronger propositions than ♦(φ ∨ ψ), it immediately follows that Prag(♦(φ ∨ ψ)) = , which is obviously wrong. Let’s turn then to exhaustive interpretation. We take the only relevantly different worlds in which ♦(φ ∨ ψ) are true to be {u, v, w}, where ♦φ is true in u and w, and ♦ψ is true in v and w. Recall that Exh(φ) holds in worlds in which as few as possible alternatives to φ are true. But this means that Exh(♦(φ ∨ ψ)) = {u, v}, from which we can wrongly conclude that only one of the permissions is true. The desired conclusion that both permissions are true is incompatible with this pragmatic interpretation. A similar story holds for conditionals with disjunctive antecedents. Let us turn now to the weaker Gricean interpretation Grice. This weaker Gricean rule indeed predicts an interpretation that the sentences in fact have. For the disjunctive permission ♦(φ ∨ ψ) it is predicted that neither ♦φ nor ♦ψ are known to be true, but that they both are possibly true, perhaps even together. This prediction is appealing, but strengthening this by assuming our earlier form of competence doesn’t give rise to the desired conclusion: the resulting exhaustive interpretation gives rise to the wrong prediction. Perhaps this just means that the set of alternatives is chosen wrongly, or ∗ ∗ ∗ 17 Similarly, fw (τw (α ∨ β)) ⊆ fw (τw (α)) ∪ fw (τw (β)) and Πφ∨ψ ⊆ Πφ ∪ Πψ .

11:10


that the competence assumption is formalized in the wrong way. Indeed, this was proposed by Schulz (2003, 2005) to account for free choice permissions. As for the latter, she took a speaker to be competent in case she knows of each alternative whether it is true. Second, she took the set of alternatives of ♦φ to be the set {ψ : ψ ∈ A(φ)} ∪ {¬ψ : ψ ∈ A(φ)}.18 First, notice that by applying Grice to a sentence of the form ♦(φ ∨ ψ) it immediately follows that the speaker knows neither ¬φ nor ¬ψ, in formulas, ¬K¬φ and ¬K¬ψ. What we would like is that from here we derive the free choice reading: ♦φ and ♦ψ, which would follow from K¬¬φ and K¬¬ψ. Of course, this doesn’t follow yet, because it might be that the speaker does not know what the agent may or must do.19 But now assume that the speaker is competent on this in Schulz’ sense. Intuitively, this means that Pφ ≡ Kφ and P♦φ ≡ K♦φ. Remember that after applying Grice, it is predicted that neither K¬φ nor K¬ψ holds, which means that P¬¬φ and P¬¬φ have to be true. The latter, in turn, are equivalent to P♦φ and P♦ψ. By competence we can now immediately conclude to K♦φ and K♦ψ, from which we can derive ♦φ and ♦ψ as desired, because knowledge implies truth.20 Although I find this analysis appealing, it is controversial, mainly because of her choice of alternatives. This also holds for other proposed pragmatic analyses to account for free choice permissions, such as, for example, that of Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002). In section 4 I will discuss some other possible analyses that explain the desired free choice inference that assume that the alternatives of (φ ∨ ψ) > χ and ♦(φ ∨ ψ) are φ > χ and ψ > χ, and ♦φ and ♦ψ, respectively. 18 Taking φ as an alternative is natural to infer from ♦φ to the falsity of this necessity statement. 19 Notice, though, that this inference does follow if ‘’ and ‘♦’ stand for epistemic must and epistemic might. This is so, because for the epistemic case we can safely assume that the speaker knows what he believes, which can be modeled by taking the epistemic accessibility relation to be fully introspective. This gives the correct predictions, because from Katrin might be at home or at work, it intuitively follows that, according to the speaker, Katrin might be at home, and that she might be at work (cf., Zimmermann 2000). 20 Notice that it is also Schulz’ reasoning and notion of competence for Anna ate all of the cookies that is used to explain why from (2-a) we conclude to (2-b).

11:11

Robert van Rooij

4 Taking both directions into account 4.1 The intuition21 Suppose we adopt a Stalnaker/Lewis style analysis of conditional sentences. In that case we have to assume a selection function f , to evaluate the truthvalue of the sentence. Take now a set of worlds in which (φ ∨ ψ) > χ = {u, v, w} such that (i) fu (φ ∨ ψ) = fu (φ) ⊆ χ and fu (ψ) 6⊆ χ, (ii) fv (φ) 6⊆ χ and fv (φ ∨ ψ) = fv (ψ) ⊆ χ, and (iii) fw (φ ∨ ψ) = fw (φ) ∪ fw (ψ) ⊆ χ.22 We would like to conclude via pragmatic reasoning that the speaker who asserted (φ ∨ ψ) > χ implicated that we are in world w. In that case both φ > χ and ψ > χ are true as well, and we derived the “conjunctive” interpretation of the conditional with a disjunctive antecedent. The reasoning will go as follows. First, we are going to assume that the speaker is competent: she knows in which world she is. It seems unreasonable that she is in u, because otherwise the speaker could have used an alternative expression, φ > χ, which (limiting ourselves to worlds in which (φ ∨ ψ) > χ is true) more accurately singles out {u} than (φ ∨ ψ) > χ does. For the same reason we can conclude that the speaker is not in world v. In the only other case, w, fw (φ ∨ ψ) = fw (φ) ∪ fw (ψ) ⊆ χ, and thus both φ > χ and ψ > χ are true. Of course, one might wonder whether also this state cannot be expressed more economically by an alternative expression. But the answer to this will be negative, because we have already assumed that (φ > χ) ∧ (φ > χ) is not an alternative to (φ ∨ ψ) > χ. Thus, (φ ∨ ψ) > χ 21 The intuition of the following solution I owe to Franke (2009). One way of working out this intuition will be somewhat different, though, from what Franke proposed. This way makes use of bidirectional optimality theory. Earlier accounts making use of Bi-OT include Sæbø 2004 and Aloni 2007. What I always found problematic about such earlier Bi-OT solutions (I was a co-author of an earlier version of Aloni 2007) is that complexity of alternative expressions was taken to play a crucial role. But explanations based on complexity are not always equally convincing. Following Franke 2009, I believe that making use of complexity is not required. At a 2009 conference in Leuven where I presented Bi-OT and game-theoretic “solutions” of the problem of free choice inferences, Bart Geurts presented a solution that was based on a similar intuition (I am not sure in how far complexity played a crucial role here, or not), to be presented in Geurts 2010. I believe that also Edgar Onea suggested a solution very much in the same spirit. Perhaps this should be taken as an indication how natural a solution in this spirit is. 22 It might seem that I wrongly assume that φ > χ î (φ ∨ ψ) > χ and ψ > χ î (φ ∨ ψ) > χ. This is not, and should not, be the case. It might well be, for instance, that φ > χ is true in w, but (φ ∨ ψ) > χ is not. However, our reasoning will not depend on such worlds, because we will only consider worlds in which (φ ∨ ψ) > χ is true.

11:12


pragmatically entails φ > χ and ψ > χ, because if not, the speaker could have used an alternative expression which more accurately singled out the actual world. Intuitive solutions are ok, but to test them, we have to make them precise. In the following I will suggest two ways to implement the above intuition. Both implementations are based on the idea that to account for the desired “conjunctive” inferences of the disjunctive sentences, alternative expressions and alternative worlds/interpretations must play a very similar role in pragmatic interpretation. Thinking of it in somewhat different terms, we should take seriously both the speaker’s and the hearer’s perspective. Fortunately, there are two well-known theories on the market that look at pragmatic interpretation from such a point of view: Bi-directional Optimality Theory (e.g., Blutner 2000), and Game Theory (e.g., Benz, Jäger & van Rooij 2005). In the following I will discuss two possible ways to proceed, but they have something crucial in common: both ways make use of different levels of interpretation. The first proposal is game-theoretic in nature, and due to Franke (2010, 2009). The second suggestion is a less radical departure from the “received view” in pragmatics, and is more in the spirit of Bi-OT. It makes crucial use of exhaustive interpretation and of different levels of interpretation, but like in Bi-OT, alternative worlds and expressions that initially played a role in interpretation need not play a role anymore at higher levels.23 4.2

Franke’s game-theoretic solution

Game-theoretic and optimality-theoretic analyses of conversational implicatures seek to account in one systematic way for both scalar implicatures and for implicatures involving marked and unmarked meanings/interpretations, inspired by Horn’s division of pragmatic labor. In order to do so, they associate with an expression not just a semantic meaning, but assign also probabilities. According to the most straightforward proposal, the proba1 bility of w given φ, P (w | φ) = card(φ) if w ∈ φ, 0 otherwise. Recall that according to one standard approach pragmatic interpretation works as follows: (8)

Prag(φ) = {w ∈ φ | ¬∃ψ ∈ A(φ) : w ∈ ψ & ψ ⊂ φ}.

23 For the exact relation between Bi-OT and the game-theoretical best-response dynamics Franke makes use of, see Franke 2009.

11:13

Robert van Rooij

Figure 1

u

v

w

Some

1 3

1 3

1 3

=

1

Most

0

1 2

1 2

=

1

All

0

0

1

=

1

w

P (w | φ)

P (w | φ) for standard scale

P (w | f )

Figure 2

P

P (w | φ)

P

uφ≺ψ

vψ≺φ

wφ≈ψ

φ>χ

1 2

0

1 2

=

1

ψ>χ

0

1 2

1 2

=

1

(φ ∨ ψ) > χ

1 3

1 3

1 3

=

1

w

P (w | f )

P (w | f ) for counterfactual

On the assumption that all worlds are equally likely, here is a straightforward way to reformulate (8) making use of probabilities: (12)

Prag0 (φ) = {w ∈ φ | ¬∃ψ ∈ A(φ) : P (w | ψ) > P (w | φ)}

Look now at a standard example with All = {w} ⊂ Most = {v, w} ⊂ Some = {u, v, w}.24 From the assertion Some the desired implicature immediately follows, as can be seen from figure 1. The idea is that, for instance, Most is pragmatically interpreted as {v}, because (i) there is no world in which Most gets a higher value, and (ii) in v it is best to utter Most, because for all alternatives ψ, P (v | ψ) < P (v | Most). Let us now do the same for the sentence (φ ∨ ψ) > χ, together with its alternatives. Suppose that if we have in the columns the alternative worlds (with uφ≺ψ standing for the world where the best φ-worlds are closer to u than any ψ-world), and that we assume that χ is true in the most similar worlds (but not in others). In that case we get figure 2 (where f is an arbitrary form, or expression). 24 With All abbreviating All Ps are Qs.

11:14


A number of things are worth remarking. First of all, all sentences are true in wφ≈ψ . As a result of this, a (naive) hearer will interpret, for instance, φ > χ as equally likely true in uφ≺ψ as in wφ≈ψ . Now take the speaker’s perspective. Which statement would, or should, she make given that she is in a particular situation, or world? Naturally, that statement that gives her the highest chance that the (naive) hearer will interpret the message correctly. Thus, she should utter that sentence which gives the highest number in the column. But this means that in uφ≺ψ she should (and rationally would) utter φ > χ, in vψ≺φ she should utter ψ > χ, and in wφ≈ψ it doesn’t matter what she utters, both are equally good. The boxed entries model this speaker’s choice. The important thing to note is that according to this reasoning, no speaker (a speaker in no world) would ever utter (φ ∨ ψ) > χ. Still, this is exactly the message that was uttered and should be interpreted, so we obviously missed something. Franke (2009) proposes that our reasoning didn’t go far enough. We should now take the hearer’s perspective again, taking into account the optimal speaker’s message choice given a naive semantic interpretation of the hearer.25 This can best be represented by modeling the probabilities of the messages sent according to the previous reasoning, given the situation/world that the speaker is in.26 How should the hearer now interpret the messages? Well, because the speaker would always send φ > χ in uφ≺ψ , while the chance that she sends φ > χ in wφ≈ψ is lower (and taking the a priori probabilities of the worlds to be equal), there is a higher chance that the speaker of φ > χ is in world uφ≺ψ than in wφ≈ψ , and thus the hearer will choose accordingly. This is represented by the boxed entry in figure 3 (in which P (f | w) stands for the probability with which the speaker would say f if she were in w). Something similar holds for ψ > χ. As for (φ ∨ ψ) > χ, it is clear that all worlds are equally likely now, given that a previous speaker would not make this utterance in any of those worlds. Having specified how such a more sophisticated hearer would interpret the alternative utterances, we turn back to the speaker, but now assume that the speaker takes such a more sophisticated hearer into account. First we fill in the probabilities of the worlds, given the previous reasoning. Notice that these probabilities are crucially different from the earlier P (w | f ). The speaker now chooses optimally given these probabilities: i.e., the speaker 25 Jäger & Ebert (2009) make a similar move. Both models are instances of Iterated Best Response (IBR) models. 26 For a more precise description, the reader should consult Franke 2009, obviously.

11:15

Robert van Rooij

P (f | w)

uφ≺ψ

vψ≺φ

wφ≈ψ

φ>χ

1

0

1 2

ψ>χ

0

1

1 2

(φ ∨ ψ) > χ

0

0

0

1

1

1

P

f

Figure 3

P (f | w) for 1st -level hearer

P (w | f )

Figure 4

P (f | w)

P

P (w | f )

uφ≺ψ

vψ≺φ

wφ≈ψ

φ>χ

1

0

0

=

1

ψ>χ

0

1

0

=

1

(φ ∨ ψ) > χ

1 3

1 3

1 3

=

1

w

P (w | f ) for 1st -level speaker

chooses (one of) the highest rows in the columns. In uφ≺ψ and vψ≺φ she would choose as before, but in wφ≈ψ she now chooses (φ ∨ ψ) > χ instead of either of the others. This is again represented by boxed entries in figure 4. If we take the hearer’s perspective again, the iteration finally reaches a fixed point. As illustrated by figure 5, (φ ∨ ψ) > χ is now interpreted by the even more sophisticated hearer in the desired way. From the truth of (φ ∨ ψ) > χ, both φ > χ and ψ > χ pragmatically follow. Franke (2010, 2009) shows that by exactly the same reasoning free choice permissions are accounted for as well.27 What is more, using exactly the same machinery he can even explain (by making use of global reasoning) why we infer from (φ ∨ ψ) > χ and ♦(φ ∨ ψ) that the alternatives (φ ∧ ψ) > χ and ♦(φ ∧ ψ) are not true, inferences that are sometimes taken to point to a local analysis of implicature calculation. 27 Franke uses standard deontic logic, but that doesn’t seem essential. Starting with one of the two more dynamic approaches, he could explain the free choice inference as well using a very similar reasoning.

11:16


P (f | w)

uφ≺ψ

vψ≺φ

wφ≈ψ

φ>χ

1

0

0

ψ>χ

0

1

0

(φ ∨ ψ) > χ

0

0

1

1

1

1

P

f

Figure 5 4.3

P (f | w)

P (f | w) for 2nd -level hearer

A Bidirectional-like solution

Is there any relation between the above game-theoretic reasoning and the “received” analysis making use of pragmatic interpretation rule (8) or that of exhaustive interpretation, (10)? I will suggest that a “bidirectional” received view is at least very similar to Franke’s proposal sketched above, and does the desired work as well. In the above explanation, we started with looking at the semantic interpretation from the hearer’s point of view. This way of starting things was motivated by pragmatic interpretation rule (8): (8)

Prag(φ) = {w ∈ φ | ¬∃ψ ∈ A(φ) : w ∈ ψ & ψ ⊂ φ}.

But we could have started with the pragmatic interpretation rule (10) as well. (10)

Exh(φ) = {w ∈ φ | ¬∃v ∈ φ : v P (φ | w)}.

For the simple scalar implicature, the table to start with from a naive speaker’s

11:17

Robert van Rooij

P

Figure 6

P (φ | w)

u

v

w

Some

1

1 2

1 3

Most

0

1 2

1 3

All

0

0

1 3

P (f | w)

1

1

1

P (f | w)

u

v

w

♦φ

1 2

0

1 3

♦ψ

0

1 2

1 3

♦(φ ∨ ψ)

1 2

1 2

1 3

1

1

1

f

P (φ | w) for standard scale

P

f

Figure 7

P (f | w)

P (f | w) for 0th -level speaker

point of view is given in figure 6: Though the way of choosing would be different (it is the hearer now who chooses the column with the highest number), the result would be exactly the same. What would be the beginning table for our problematic sentence ♦(φ ∨ ψ)? It is given in figure 7. Just as we derived using the rule of exhaustive interpretation, the first prediction would be that ♦(φ ∨ ψ) is interpreted as {u, v}. To improve things, we have to look again at the hearer’s perspective. And, in fact, this could be done in Franke’s framework, and we end up with exactly the same desired solution. What this suggests is two things: (i) adopting speaker’s and hearer’s point of view closely corresponds with pragmatic interpretation rules (10) and (8), respectively; (ii) to correctly predict the pragmatic interpretation of ♦(φ ∨ ψ) we have to take both types of interpretation rules into account. Recall the intuition as expressed in the previous subsection. That reasoning corresponded very closely to the following pragmatic interpretation

11:18


rule: Prag∗ (φ) = {w ∈ Exh(φ) | ¬∃ψ ∈ A(φ) : w ∈ ψφ ∧ ψφ ⊂ φ}, where ψφ denotes ψ ∩ φ and ψ is taken not to be an element of A(φ).28 Notice that this rule is close to interpretation rule (8), with the important difference that exhaustive interpretation (the speaker’s point of view) plays an important role. Unfortunately, just as the earlier Prag, also this rule wrongly predicts that a sentence like ♦(φ ∨ ψ) doesn’t have a pragmatic interpretation (Prag∗ (♦(φ ∨ ψ)) = ). For this reason we have to iterate,29 although the intuition behind this new rule will remain the same: ♦(φ ∨ ψ) pragmatically entails ♦φ and ♦ψ, because if not, the speaker could have used an alternative expression which more accurately singled out the actual world. In the following we will abbreviate the condition that ∀ψ ∈ A(φ) : v ∈ ψ ⇒ w ∈ ψ by v ≤A(φ) w as before. If K is the set of worlds in which the sentence under consideration is true, I will also abbreviate ψ ∩ K by ψK . Moreover, ψ ≺n φ will be an abbreviation for the condition ψKn ⊂ φKn , if n = 0, and ψKn ⊆ φKn , otherwise. Intuitively, ψ ≺n φ expresses the fact that at least some worlds of the nth -level interpretation of φ could be expressed more precisely by alternative expression ψ. We will make use of the following definitions:30 K

def

= {w ∈ φKn | ¬∃v ∈ φKn : v χ. What’s more, we have even explained why we can pragmatically infer from ♦(φ ∨ ψ) that the alternative ♦(φ ∧ ψ) is not true, just as Franke (2009) could. These predictions are exactly as desired, but how does our machinery work for more simple examples, like φ ∨ ψ? Fortunately, it predicts correctly here as well. First, assume that φ∨ψ = {u, v, w} = K, φ = {u, w}, ψ = K {v, w}, and φ ∧ ψ = {w}. Observe that Exh0 0 (φ ∨ ψ) = {u, v}. On the K0 basis of these facts, we can conclude that Prag0 (φ ∨ ψ) = . This is just the same reasoning as before. The difference shows up when we go to the next K level and determine Prag1 1 (φ ∨ ψ), because now there will be an alternative left over which plays a crucial role. But first calculate K1 and A1 (φ ∨ ψ): K K1 = {w} and A1 (φ ∨ ψ) = {φ ∧ ψ}. Obviously, Exh1 1 (φ ∨ ψ) = {w}, but because w ∈ φ ∧ ψ, it follows that (φ ∧ ψ) ≺1 (φ ∨ ψ), and thus K Prag1 1 (φ ∨ ψ) = . It follows that K2 = , from which we can conclude that K PragK (φ ∨ ψ) = Exh0 0 (φ ∨ ψ) = {u, v}, as desired. Let us now see what happens if we look at multiple occurrences of disjunctions: examples like φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ, ♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ), and (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) > ξ. First look at φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ and assume that φ = {w1 , w4 , w5 , w7 }, ψ = {w2 , w4 , w6 , w7 }, K and χ = {w3 , w5 , w6 , w7 }. Observe that Exh0 0 (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) = {w1 , w2 , w3 }. K On the basis of these facts, we can conclude that Prag0 0 (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) = . If only the separate disjuncts were alternatives of φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ, it would result that K1 = {w4 , w5 , w6 , w7 }, which would then also be the inferred pragmatic interpretation. We have to conclude that thus we need other alternatives as well. It is only natural to assume that also φ ∧ ψ, φ ∧ χ, ψ ∧ χ, and φ ∧ ψ ∧ χ are alternatives. In that case K1 is still {w4 , w5 , w6 , w7 }, but now the new set of alternatives is {φ ∧ ψ, φ ∧ χ, ψ ∧ χ, φ ∧ ψ ∧ χ}, and the resulting pragmatic K meaning will be different. In particular, Exh1 1 (φ∨ψ∨χ) = {w4 , w5 , w6 }. HowK1 ever, none of these worlds remains in Prag1 (φ∨ψ∨χ), because w4 ∈ φ∧ψ which is a stronger expression than φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ, and similarly for w5 and w6 . This means we have to go to the next level where K2 = {w7 }. But w7 won’t K be in Prag2 2 (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ), because w7 ∈ φ ∧ ψ ∧ χ = {w7 }. As a result, K PragK (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) = Exh0 0 (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) = {w1 , w2 , w3 }, just as desired.

11:21

Robert van Rooij

What about ♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ), for instance? Once again we have to make a closure assumption concerning the alternatives. As it turns out, the correct way to go is also the most natural one: first, A(♦φ) = {♦ψ : ψ ∈ A(φ)}, and second, A(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) = {φ, ψ, χ, φ ∧ ψ, φ ∧ χ, ψ ∧ χ, φ ∧ ψ ∧ χ, φ ∨ ψ, φ ∨ χ, ψ ∨ χ}. Thus, at the “local” level, the alternatives are closed under disjunction as well. Let us now assume that ♦φ = {w1 , w4 , w5 , w7 }, ♦ψ = {w2 , w4 , w6 , w7 }, and ♦χ = {w3 , w5 , w6 , w7 }. Let’s assume for simplicity that in none of these worlds any conjunctive permission like ♦(φ ∧ ψ) is K true. Observe that Exh0 0 (♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ)) = {w1 , w2 , w3 }. It follows that K1 = {w4 , w5 , w6 , w7 } and the new set of alternatives is the earlier set minus K {♦φ, ♦ψ, ♦χ}. The new exhaustive interpretation will be Exh1 1 (♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ K χ)) = {w4 , w5 , w6 }, but all these worlds are ruled out for Prag1 1 (♦(φ∨ψ∨χ)) because of our disjunctive alternatives. This means that we have to go to the next level. At level 2, the new set of worlds is just {w8 }, which is thus K also Exh2 2 (♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ)). World w8 cannot be eliminated by a more precise K alternative, which means that also Prag2 2 (♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ)) = {w8 }, which is what PragK (♦(φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ)) will then denote as well. Notice that in w8 it holds that all of ♦φ, ♦ψ, and ♦χ are true: the desired free choice inference. Similar reasoning applies to (φ ∨ ψ ∨ χ) > ξ. These calculations have made clear that to account for free choice permission, we have to make use of exhaustive interpretation several times. In this sense it is similar to the analysis proposed by Fox (2007). Still, there are some important differences. One major difference is that Fox (2007) exhaustifies not only the sentence that is asserted, but also the relevant alternatives. Moreover, Fox uses exhaustification to turn alternatives into other alternatives, thereby “syntacticising” the process. We don’t do anything like this, and therefore feel that what we do is more in line with the Gricean approach. Exhaustification always means looking at “minimal” worlds: we don’t change the alternatives. The worst that can happen to them is that they are declared not to be relevant anymore to determine the pragmatic interpretation. Notice that our analysis also immediately explains why it is appropriate to use any under ♦, but not under : whereas ♦(φ∨ψ∨χ) pragmatically entails ♦(φ∨χ), (φ∨ψ∨χ) does not pragmatically entail (φ∨χ). It is easy to see that our analysis can account for the “free choice” inference of the existential sentence as well: that from Several of my cousins had cherries or strawberries we naturally infer that some of the cousins had cherries and some had

11:22


strawberries.31 In formulas, from ∃x(P x ∧ (Qx ∨ Rx)) we can pragmatically infer that both ∃x(P x ∧ Qx) and ∃x(P x ∧ Rx) are true. But this shows that yet another “paradoxical” conjunctive reading of disjunctive sentences can be accounted for as well.32 If we analyze comparatives as proposed by Larson (1988), for instance, it is predicted that John is taller than Mary or Sue should be represented as something like ∃d[d(T )(j)∧(¬d(T )(m)∨¬d(T )(s))], with d a measure function from (denotations of) adjectives to sets of individuals. Pragmatically we can infer from this that John is taller than Mary and that John is taller than Sue. Chemla (2009) argued that sentences of the form ∀x♦(P x ∨ Qx) give rise to inferences that are more problematic to account for by globalist approaches towards conversational implicatures than by localist approaches. He found that people inferred from Everybody is allowed to take Algebra or Literature that everybody can choose which of the two they will take. This suggests that in general we infer from ∀x♦(P x ∨ Qx) both ∀x♦P x and ∀x♦Qx. In their commentary article, Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009b) suggested that the observed “conjunctive” inference might very well depend on the particular construction being used, however, and thus be less general than predicted by a localist approach. Moreover, they suggest that universal permission sentences are just summaries of permissions of the form ♦(φ ∨ ψ) made to multiple addressees, in which case the data can be explained by any global analysis that can explain standard free choice permissions. I don’t know what is the appropriate analysis of these inferences. I can point out, however, what we would have to add to our analysis to account for the conjunctive interpretation. If this conjunctive interpretation really depends on the particular construction being used (as suggested by Geurts and Pouscoulous), then it would be wise not to make use of this extra addition. As it turns out, our approach predicts the conjunctive interpretation if we include ∃x♦(P x ∨ Qx) among the alternatives, and we exchange in the definition of ψ ≺ φn the notion ψKn by the pragmatic interpretation of ψ, PragK (ψ).33 The crucial step in this case is the one in which a minimal world 31 I believe that Nathan Klinedinst and Regine Eckhardt were the first to observe that these inferences should go through. Perhaps it should be pointed out that Schulz (2003) could straightforwardly account for these inferences as well. 32 This observation is due to Krasikova (2007), though she uses Fox’s analysis of free choice inferences. 33 Thus, ψ ≺n φ will be an abbreviation for the condition ψKn ⊂ φKn , if n = 0, and n PragK (ψ) ⊆ φKn , otherwise, where PragK (ψ) is, as before, PragK n (ψ) for the first n such n that PragK (ψ) = 6 n

11:23

Robert van Rooij

where ∃x♦P x and ∃x♦Qx are true but both ∀x♦P x and ∀x♦Qx false is eliminated, because such a world could be more accurately expressed (given the truth of ∀x♦(P x ∨ Qx)) by the alternative ∃x♦(P x ∨ Qx). While the inclusion of ∃x♦(P x ∨Qx) among the alternatives of ∀x♦(P x ∨Qx) is not a significant change to our framework, it has to be admitted that the exchange of the notion ψKn by the pragmatic interpretation of ψ is significant. From an intuitive point of view, the effect of this exchange would be that we do not only look at the exhaustive interpretation of φ, the sentence asserted, but also at the exhaustive interpretations of the alternatives. As a result, our analysis would become much closer to the proposal of Fox (2007). But, as mentioned above, if we were to adopt the suggestion of Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009b), this would, in fact, not be the way to go. 5 Conclusion The papers of Geurts & Pouscoulous (2009a) and Chemla (2009) provide strong empirical evidence that sentences in which a trigger of a scalar implicature occurs under a universal does not in general give rise to an embedded implicature. This evidence favors a globalist analysis of conversational implicatures over its localist alternative. As far as I know, it is uncontroversial that triggers occurring under an existential do give rise to implicatures. In this paper, and following Franke (2010, 2009), I discussed some ways in which these challenging examples for a “globalist” analysis of conversional implicatures could be given a principled global pragmatic explanation after all. I suggested how potentially problematic examples for our global pragmatic analysis of the form ∀x♦(P x ∨ Qx), as discussed by Chemla (2009), could be treated as well. At least two things have to be admitted, though. First, our global analysis still demands that the alternatives are calculated locally. I don’t think this is a major concession to localists. Second, according to Zimmermann (2000), even a disjunctive permission of the form You may do φ or you may do ψ gives rise to the free choice inference, and according to Merin (1992) a conjunctive permission of the form You may do φ and ψ allows the addressee to perform only φ. I have no idea how to pragmatically account for those intuitions without reinterpreting the semantics of conjunction as well as disjunction. If our analysis is acceptable, it points to the direction in which richer pragmatic theories have to go: (i) we have to take both the speaker’s and the hearer’s perspective into account, and (ii) one-step inferences (or strong Bi-OT) are not enough, more reasoning has to

11:24


be taken into account (i.e., weak Bi-OT, or iteration). These are what I take to be the main messages of this paper. References Aloni, Maria. 2007. Expressing ignorance or indifference: Modal implicatures in Bi-directional OT. In Balder ten Cate & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation: 6th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2005) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4363), 1–20. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-54075144-1. Asher, Nicholas & Daniel Bonevac. 2005. Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese 145(3). 303–323. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6196-z. Barker, Richard. 2010. Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10). 1–38. doi:10.3765/sp.3.10. Benz, Anton, Gerhard Jäger & Robert van Rooij. 2005. Games and pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition). Houndmills, Basingstoke & Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Blutner, Reinhard. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17(3). 189–216. doi:10.1093/jos/17.3.189. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2008. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms, Ecole Normale Supérieure & MIT. http://www.semanticsarchive.net/ Archive/WI1ZTU3N/Chemla-SIandPres.html. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2). 1–33. doi:10.3765/sp.2.2. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3), 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broadening your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4). 535–590. doi:10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535. Fine, Kit. 1975. Critical notice of Lewis 1973. Mind, New Series 84(335). 451–458. doi:10.1093/mind/LXXXIV.1.451. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in com-

11:25

Robert van Rooij

positional semantics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition), 71–120. Houndmills, Basingstoke & Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. http://www.illc.uva.nl/ Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-11.text.pdf. Franke, Michael. 2010. Free choice from iterated best response. In Maria Aloni, Katrin Schulz, Harald Bastiaanse & Tikitu de Jager (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning: 17th Amsterdam Colloquium (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6042), 267–276. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. To appear. Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. To appear. Geurts, Bart & Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009a. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2(4). 1–34. doi:10.3765/sp.2.4. Geurts, Bart & Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009b. Free choice for all: A response to Emmanuel Chemla. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(5). 1–10. doi:10.3765/sp.2.5. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. http://dare.uva.nl/record/123669. Harel, David. 1984. Dynamic logic. In Dov Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 2, 497–604. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Jäger, Gerhard & Christian Ebert. 2009. Pragmatic rationalizability. In Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB13) (SinSpecC 5), 1–15. Stuttgart. http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/ sfb-732/sinspec/sub13/jaegerEbert.pdf. Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 74. 57–74. Kamp, Hans. 1979. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Franz Guenther & Siegfried Schmidt (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 4), 255–287. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. Kanger, Stig. 1981. New foundations for ethical theory. In Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New studies in deontic logic: Norms, actions and the foundations of ethics (Synthese Library 152), 36–58. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. Krasikova, Sveta. 2007. Quantification in than-clauses. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 133– 138. Amsterdam: ILLC. doi:10.1.1.156.7902.

11:26


Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP3), 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Larson, Richard. 1988. Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(1). 1–26. doi:10.1007/BF00635755. Leibniz, Gottfried. 1930. Elementa iuris naturalis. In Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Sechste Reihe: Philosophische Schriften, vol. 1, 431–485. Darmstadt: Otto Reichl Verlag. Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell. Lewis, David. 1979. A problem about permission. In Esa Saarinen, Risto Hilpinen, Ilkka Niiniluoto & Merril Provence Hintikka (eds.), Essays in honor of Jaakko Hintikka: On the occasion of his fiftieth birthday on January 12, 1979, 163–175. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. McCawley, James. 1993. Everything that linguists always wanted to know about logic∗ . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 2nd edn. Merin, Arthur. 1992. Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantics. Journal of Semantics 9(2). 95–152. doi:10.1093/jos/9.2.95. Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 14(4). 351–383. doi:10.1007/211050-070-9022-y. van Rooij, Robert. 2000. Permission to change. Journal of Semantics 17(2). 119–143. doi:10.1093/jos/17.2.119. van Rooij, Robert. 2006. Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics 23(4). 383–402. doi:10.1093/jos/ffl004. van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13(4). 491–519. doi:10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6. Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2004. Optimal interpretations of permission sentences. In Rusudan Asatiani, Kata Balogh, Dick de Jongh, George Chikoize & Paul Dekker (eds.), The Fifth Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (TbiLLC 2003), 137–144. Amsterdam and Tiblisi: ILLC/CLLS. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures of complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3). 367–391. doi:10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db.

11:27

Robert van Rooij

Schulz, Katrin. 2003. You may read it now or later: A case study on the paradox of free choice permission. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis. http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/ MoL-2004-01.text.pdf. Schulz, Katrin. 2005. A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese: Knowledge, Rationality and Action 147(2). 343–377. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-1353-y. Schulz, Katrin & Robert van Rooij. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and nonmonotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2). 205–250. doi:10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4. Spector, Benjamin. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Balder ten Cate (ed.), Eighth ESSLLI Student Session (European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information), 277–288. Vienna. http://www.cs.ucsc.edu/~btencate/esslli03/stus2003proc.pdf. Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des operateurs logiques. Paris: University of Paris VII dissertation. http://cognition.ens.fr/ ~bspector/THESE_SPECTOR/THESE_SPECTOR_AVEC_ANNEXE2.pdf. von Wright, G. H. 1950. Deontic logic. Mind 60(237). 1–15. doi:10.1093/mind/LX.237.1. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4). 255–290. doi:10.1023/A:1011255819284.

Robert van Rooij Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15 1015 CP Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands [email protected]

11:28